Here in the U.S. the FAA is still evaluating FPV and as of now has not enacted any new rules other than their advisory circular 91-57 in effect since 1981 which gives guidance to all types of RC flying such as staying away from populated areas, airports, flying under 400 feet, giving way to manned aircraft etc. All pretty much common sense. But they are now looking into possible proposed rules for FPV.

The American Model Association (AMA) recently adopted these FPV rules in the U.S.for their members.

"First Person View (FPV) Operations

1. An FPV-equipped model must be flown by two AMA members utilizinga buddy-box system. The pilot in command must be on the primarytransmitter, maintain visual contact, and be prepared to assumecontrol in the event of a problem.

2. The operational range of the model is limited to the pilot in command’svisual line of sight as defined in the Official AMA National ModelAircraft Safety Code (see Radio Control, item 9).

3. The flight path of model operations shall be limited to the designatedflying site and approved overfly area.

4. The model weight and speed shall be limited to a maximum of 10pounds and 60 miles per hour."

Note the above is not a “law” but to fly at any AMA fields in the U.S. one would have to comply with the above. Personally I can see restrictions in the weight or speed requirement . But I can’t see your electric Clouds Fly or Skywalker is going to cause more damage than if your regular non-FPV large gas model or jet loses control and crashes into anybody at your field or flys away by itself because of a malfunction in equipment.

Just wondering what the regulations are in your countries and if the U.S. is going to eventually severely restrict FPV modeling?

As you point out, a lightweight foam FPV model (such as an AXN -- just over 600g fully loaded) is hardly going to pose a threat to life or property if it comes down in an unintended location or flies off into the distance. Right now, free-flight models weighing this much (or more) are quite legal and with them, every flight is uncontrolled, every landing contains a degree of "luck" far beyond that involved in RC or RC-FPV flight.

While flying within visual range with a spotter on buddy box sounds like a wonderful safety move -- it also has the potential to utterly take the fun and challenge out of FPV flying.

personally, I love "bareback FPV" which involves flying only a few hundred meters from the launch point and staying nice and low most of the time. It's fun.

However, sometimes it's nice to do a little "cross-country" flying too. Hook up your patch antennas, your diversity box, install an RTL system and see just how far you can get before you run out of range or battery capacity. To restrict FPV flying to visual range (which is usually no more than about 600 yards for a decent sized model) is *very* restrictive.

What would be a far better alternative to the FAA suggestions (which are also pretty much like the ones here in NZ) is that two classes of hobby FPV models be defined:

1. lightweight FPVThese are models that weigh no more than 750g and are made of foam with a maximum speed of no more than 75KPH (so the kinetic energy level is very low). They would pose little danger to anyone/anything if control/communications were lost and thus they should be free of the buddy-box/spotter/visual-range limitations. In effect, they would be covered by the same rules that apply to free-flight models now -- since they pose the same level of risk to person/property.

2. Other FPV *models*These would be up to (say) 3Kgs in weight and also made of foam -- so as to reduce kinetic energy and risk to property/life. They must be fitted with an effective return-to-launch device (manually operated or automatically by failsafe) that operates if the RC link is lost and returns the model to the launch area. These models could can be flown beyond visual range only by those who have attained a "certification" in FPV flight, issued by a recognized body who can determine the skill and abilities of the flier concerned.

All the normal (commonsense) caveats would apply:

- no deliberate flying over a built-up area- no flying in a manner that deliberately endangers life/property- only legal frequencies and power levels to be used for RC and video transmitters- etc, etc, etc.

If anyone has any comments, critiques or suggestions to enhance/extend these guidelines, post them here.

Remember Bruce, we are in "the land of the free" governed by so many regulations we can't even fart without special permission from the EPA, energy management department, next door neighbor or even the old lady down the street!!!

I think this is another reason why the FPV community has to be pro-active in coming up with a set of practical guidelines and recommendations -- so as to stave off the introduction of far more restrictive laws by "the powers that be".

If we can show them that we're working sensibly, responsibly and practically to create a safe environment for FPV flying then perhaps they'll be less inclined to try and regulate and control to the degree that has been mooted so far.

RCModelReviews wrote:If anyone has any comments, critiques or suggestions to enhance/extend these guidelines, post them here.

Good, sensible recommendations Bruce.

I'd like to add that FPV models should be pusher prop designs and that the payload (cameras video Txs etc) be encased in foam, so as to reduce the potential for injury, especially to someone's eyes.

I'm also concerned about rotor wing FPV vehicles, especially helicopters. There have been a lot of videos of people flying tricopters etc in populated inner city locations and quite near children. Really, really stupid thing to do. All sorts of things can go wrong (and do) and then if some kid gets blinded, the legislators go ape.

Rotor wing FPV craft MUST have ducted fans, or their props similarly encased in some way, to be legal, in my opinion. Helicopters should probably be banned from FPV, except under very controlled situation, such as at clubs set up for rc Helicopter flying.

Also, FPV is not really a good mix with general club flying. The flying area should, if possible be away from the main circuit, as FPV pilots can't always see well enough, or react quickly enough, to avoid other models, even with a spotter. Sensible regulations about radio frequencies need to be addressed too, as some video gear can really produce a lot of noise. These are just club rules ideas though, to keep any aggro to a minimum.

I'm thinking about holding a big FPV fly-in at our field -- perhaps that'll be a great venue to discuss the options with like-minded souls while also proving to "the powers that be" we can act responsibly and fly safely with all this new technology.

It's our policy to invite CAA (the national Aviation Authority) to our events so they can see for themselves that we take safety very seriously.

In the event that we can show them just how safe FPV can be, maybe they'll be more prepared to let us take responsibility for our own activities and even if they do regulate, to do so with a much lighter hand.

It helps that our field has many very obvious landmarks such as a runway (with different numbers on each end), a moto-X track, a gokart track and a horse-training track. It's very difficult to get lost when FPVing around here and there's lots of open land over which you can safely fly.

Maybe the USA, Australia, the UK and other countries might like to send delegate-fliers to such an event and take home useful information. If we can get the CAA here in NZ to adopt an FPV-community created "code of practice" rather than lay down draconian laws and regulations, that could be used as a benchmark for other countries when they decide to investigate how to control FPV flight.

RCModelReviews wrote:I'm thinking about holding a big FPV fly-in at our field -- perhaps that'll be a great venue to discuss the options with like-minded souls while also proving to "the powers that be" we can act responsibly and fly safely with all this new technology.

Please do this! I would happily drive down to Tokoroa and sleep in the back of my car for a weekend of FPV flying

Just need to get my antennas fixed. IBCrazy has such a good guide but they are quite hard to make and very fiddly at 5.8ghz!

In regards to regulations, I think weight and speed are the perfect basis as you've said Bruce. Some of the microlights and Gyrocopters you see flying around are far more dangerous than our little foamies